UI Architecture Comparison

Reading time: ~12 minutes

Introduction

This document provides a detailed comparison between PrismUI—the recommended presentation layer pattern for Prism Architecture—and other popular UI architectural patterns. Understanding these differences will help you make informed decisions about which UI architecture to implement in your applications.

While the Comparison with Alternative Architectures document focuses on overall architectural approaches, this document specifically addresses UI architecture patterns and how they integrate with the broader Prism Architecture.

Overview of UI Architectural Patterns

PrismUI

PrismUI is the recommended presentation layer pattern for Prism Architecture, designed specifically to work with the domain-centric approach of the core architecture.

Key Characteristics:

• Hierarchical presenter structure mirroring the UI component hierarchy
• Intent-based communication from UI to presenter
• Unidirectional state flow from presenter to UI
• Clear separation between UI state management and visual components
• Compatibility with declarative UI frameworks (SwiftUI, React, Flutter)

MVVM (Model-View-ViewModel)

MVVM separates the UI (View) from its logic (ViewModel) and data (Model).

Key Characteristics:

• ViewModel translates Model data for the View
• Two-way data binding between View and ViewModel
• ViewModel doesn't directly reference the View
• Popular in WPF, Xamarin, SwiftUI, and Angular applications

Redux/Flux

Redux and Flux patterns emphasize unidirectional data flow and a single source of truth.

Key Characteristics:

• Central store manages application state
• Actions describe state changes
• Reducers determine how state changes in response to actions
• Unidirectional data flow
• Commonly used with React and other modern JavaScript frameworks

MVC (Model-View-Controller)

MVC separates an application into three interconnected components.

Key Characteristics:

• Controller handles user input and updates Model
• Model represents data and business logic
• View presents data to the user
• Bidirectional communication between components
• Traditional pattern used in many frameworks

MVP (Model-View-Presenter)

MVP is an evolution of MVC with a focus on testability.

Key Characteristics:

• Presenter contains UI logic and updates the View
• View is passive and forwards user actions to Presenter
• Model represents data and business logic
• Presenter mediates between View and Model
• Good for testing UI logic in isolation

Composable Architecture

A newer pattern focused on composability and predictability.

Key Characteristics:

• State and behavior composed from smaller units
• Side effects handled explicitly
• State changes are predictable and traceable
• Strong type safety
• Popular in Swift and Kotlin applications

Detailed Comparisons

Integration with Prism Architecture

Pattern	Integration Ease	Compatibility with Prism Layers	Architectural Consistency
PrismUI	Excellent - designed for Prism	Direct integration with Orchestration Layer	Complete consistency with Prism principles
MVVM	Good - similar concepts	Requires adaptation for intent system	Partial consistency with data flow model
Redux/Flux	Moderate - different mental model	Requires significant adapter layer	Consistent unidirectional flow but different implementation
MVC	Poor - contradictory data flow	Difficult to integrate cleanly	Inconsistent with Prism principles
MVP	Good - similar passive view concept	Requires adaptation for hierarchy	Partial consistency with separation model
Composable	Moderate - conceptually aligned	Requires adapter for integration	Consistent composability but different implementation

State Management

Pattern	State Organization	State Immutability	State Propagation	State Persistence
PrismUI	Hierarchical with defined levels	Enforced	Top-down flow	Supported at appropriate levels
MVVM	Per-ViewModel	Optional	Binding-based	Varies by implementation
Redux/Flux	Centralized store	Required	Subscription-based	Strong support
MVC	Distributed across Models	Not enforced	Controller-mediated	Limited support
MVP	Presenter-managed	Optional	Presenter-to-View	Limited support
Composable	Composable state containers	Typically required	Defined reducers	Strong support

Communication Flow

Pattern	Input Handling	Output Flow	Error Handling	Side Effect Management
PrismUI	Intent objects	State updates	Part of state	At orchestration level
MVVM	Commands/Bindings	Property changes	Various approaches	Often in ViewModel
Redux/Flux	Actions	State subscriptions	State properties	Middleware/Thunks
MVC	Controller methods	Direct View updates	Controller-handled	Mixed locations
MVP	Interface methods	Interface callbacks	Presenter-handled	In Presenter
Composable	Actions	State updates	State properties	Effects system

Component Hierarchy

Pattern	Component Organization	Parent-Child Communication	Cross-Component Communication	Reusability
PrismUI	Explicit hierarchy with 3 levels	Structured parent-child relationships	Via common ancestor	High - clear boundaries
MVVM	Flat or ad-hoc	Through shared services	Through shared services	Moderate - ViewModel dependencies
Redux/Flux	Flat with container components	Props passing	Through store	High - pure components
MVC	Controller-centric hierarchy	Through controllers	Through shared models	Low - tight coupling
MVP	Flat or minimal hierarchy	Limited	Through shared services	Moderate - presenter dependencies
Composable	Explicit composition	Defined composition	Defined communication	Very high - composition focus

Testability

Pattern	UI Logic Testing	Mocking Complexity	State Verification	User Interaction Testing
PrismUI	High - isolated presenters	Low - clear interfaces	Easy - explicit state	Straightforward - intent verification
MVVM	High - isolated ViewModels	Medium - dependencies and bindings	Medium - observable properties	Medium - command binding
Redux/Flux	High - pure reducer functions	Low - defined actions	Easy - state snapshots	Medium - action dispatching
MVC	Low - controller-view coupling	High - dependencies	Difficult - distributed state	Complex - view-controller integration
MVP	High - isolated presenters	Medium - interface mocking	Medium - interface verification	Medium - interface invocation
Composable	High - pure reducer functions	Low - defined actions	Easy - state snapshots	Medium - action dispatching

PrismUI Unique Features

Hierarchical Presenter Structure

PrismUI organizes presenters in a three-tiered hierarchy that mirrors the natural structure of modern UI applications. Unlike patterns that use a flat organization of view models or presenters, this structured approach creates clear boundaries of responsibility and communication paths.

The Three-Tier Presenter Hierarchy

1. Top-Level Presenters (Screen Presenters)

Top-Level Presenters operate at the screen or flow level and serve as the primary coordinators for entire screens or user flows. They have exclusive access to the Orchestration Layer and are responsible for:

• Communicating directly with the Orchestration Layer through use cases
• Managing navigation between screens or major application sections
• Coordinating across different features within a screen
• Transforming domain data into UI-specific state for distribution
• Handling system-wide UI states like authentication or permissions
• Responding to significant events from child presenters

In a typical application, you might have top-level presenters for major screens like HomeScreenPresenter, ProfileScreenPresenter, or CheckoutFlowPresenter.

2. Mid-Level Presenters (Feature Presenters)

Mid-Level Presenters handle specific feature areas or sections within a screen. They serve as intermediaries between top-level coordination and component-specific logic:

• Managing distinct feature areas or reusable screen sections
• Communicating bidirectionally with Top-Level Presenter and Component Presenters
• Transforming screen-level state into feature-specific state
• Bubbling significant intents up to the Top-Level Presenter
• Handling feature-specific business logic
• Coordinating multiple related UI components

Examples include UserInfoPresenter, ProductListPresenter, or PaymentFormPresenter, each responsible for a cohesive feature area.

3. Component Presenters (UI Component Presenters)

Component Presenters manage individual UI components and their state. These are the most granular presenters and focus on:

• Managing state for specific, often reusable UI components
• Handling direct user interactions with UI elements
• Implementing component-specific logic and validation
• Transforming data for optimal component rendering
• Forwarding user intents to parent presenters

Common component presenters include AvatarPresenter, TextFieldPresenter, or SelectionListPresenter.

Communication Flow Within the Hierarchy

The presenter hierarchy establishes clear pathways for both state and intent flow:

Downward State Flow:

1. Top-Level Presenter receives data from Orchestration Layer
2. Transforms data into screen-level state
3. Passes relevant portions to Mid-Level Presenters
4. Mid-Level Presenters transform data for their features
5. Pass component-specific state to Component Presenters
6. Component Presenters update UI components

Upward Intent Flow:

1. UI Components generate user actions
2. Component Presenters convert actions to intents
3. Forward intents to parent Mid-Level Presenter
4. Mid-Level Presenter handles intent or bubbles up
5. Top-Level Presenter receives important intents
6. Communicates with Orchestration Layer when needed

Benefits of the Hierarchical Structure

This three-tiered approach offers several significant advantages:

• Clear Responsibility Separation: Each presenter level has well-defined responsibilities
• Modular Development: Teams can work on different levels independently
• Reusable Components: Component Presenters can be reused across features
• Maintainable State Flow: State transformations happen at appropriate levels
• Testable Architecture: Each level can be tested in isolation
• Natural UI Structure Reflection: Mirrors the natural component hierarchy of modern UIs
• Scalable Complexity: Accommodates both simple and complex UI scenarios

Example Hierarchy

This structured approach to UI architecture is one of the key differentiators between PrismUI and other UI architectural patterns, enabling more maintainable and scalable presentation layers within the broader Prism Architecture.

Intent-Based Communication

PrismUI uses intents to communicate user actions from the UI to presenters:

// Example intent definition
enum ProfileIntent {
  case loadProfile
  case updateBio(String)
  case toggleFavorite
}

// UI to presenter intent transmission
presenter.handle(intent: .updateBio(newText))

Benefits include:

• Explicit, traceable user interactions
• Decoupled UI components from action handling
• Testable intent handling logic
• Clear documentation of available user actions

State Flow Management

PrismUI implements unidirectional state flow with immutable state objects:

// Example state definition
struct ProfileState {
  let userName: String
  let bio: String
  let isLoading: Bool
  let error: Error?
}

// Presenter to UI state updates
view.render(state: newState)

This approach provides:

• Predictable UI updates
• Easy state debugging and testing
• Prevention of inconsistent UI states
• Support for time-travel debugging

Integration with Declarative UI Frameworks

PrismUI works seamlessly with modern declarative UI frameworks:

// SwiftUI example
struct ProfileView: View {
  @ObservedObject var presenter: ProfilePresenter
  
  var body: some View {
    VStack {
      Text(presenter.state.userName)
      
      if presenter.state.isLoading {
        ProgressView()
      } else {
        Button("Update") {
          presenter.handle(intent: .loadProfile)
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

This compatibility ensures:

• Natural integration with SwiftUI, React, Flutter
• Leveraging framework-specific optimizations
• Consistent architecture across different platforms
• Smooth transition between platforms

Comparing PrismUI with Other Patterns

PrismUI vs. MVVM

Similarities:

• Both separate UI logic from UI components
• Both support reactive data flows
• Both promote testability through separation

Key Differences:

• Structure: PrismUI uses explicit hierarchy; MVVM typically flat
• Communication: PrismUI uses intent objects; MVVM uses bindings/commands
• State Flow: PrismUI enforces unidirectional flow; MVVM often bidirectional
• Integration: PrismUI designed for Prism Architecture; MVVM more general-purpose

When to Choose MVVM Over PrismUI:

• When using frameworks with built-in MVVM support (like WPF)
• When bidirectional bindings significantly simplify implementation
• When working with existing MVVM codebases

PrismUI vs. Redux/Flux

Similarities:

• Both use unidirectional data flow
• Both emphasize immutable state
• Both use action/intent objects for communication

Key Differences:

• State Management: PrismUI uses hierarchical state; Redux uses single store
• Action Handling: PrismUI bubbles intents up; Redux dispatches to store
• Side Effects: PrismUI handles in Orchestration; Redux uses middleware
• Structure: PrismUI has hierarchical presenters; Redux has container components

When to Choose Redux/Flux Over PrismUI:

• For JavaScript/React projects where Redux is well-established
• When centralized state debugging is critical
• When team expertise is primarily in Redux patterns

PrismUI vs. MVC

Similarities:

• Both separate concerns into distinct components
• Both handle user interactions and UI updates

Key Differences:

• Communication: PrismUI uses intents and state; MVC uses direct method calls
• Data Flow: PrismUI is unidirectional; MVC is often bidirectional
• Testability: PrismUI has high testability; MVC often has low testability
• Coupling: PrismUI has low coupling; MVC often has high coupling

When to Choose MVC Over PrismUI:

• For very simple UIs where MVC simplicity outweighs benefits
• When using frameworks that strictly enforce MVC
• For rapid prototyping where architecture is less critical

PrismUI vs. MVP

Similarities:

• Both use presenter concept for UI logic
• Both make views relatively passive
• Both focus on testability

Key Differences:

• Structure: PrismUI has hierarchical presenters; MVP typically flat
• View Updates: PrismUI uses state objects; MVP uses interface methods
• Integration: PrismUI integrates with Orchestration; MVP varies

When to Choose MVP Over PrismUI:

• When working with legacy or imperative UI frameworks
• When view interfaces better match application needs
• When migrating gradually from MVC to better patterns

PrismUI vs. Composable Architecture

Similarities:

• Both emphasize composability of components
• Both use unidirectional data flow
• Both focus on testability and state predictability

Key Differences:

• Scope: PrismUI focuses on presentation; Composable often full-stack
• State Management: PrismUI uses hierarchical state; Composable uses composed state
• Side Effects: PrismUI delegates to Orchestration; Composable uses effect system
• Integration: PrismUI designed for Prism; Composable often standalone

When to Choose Composable Architecture Over PrismUI:

• When full-stack composability is more important than Prism integration
• For Swift/iOS projects already using libraries like TCA
• When functional programming paradigm is strongly preferred

When to Choose Each Pattern

Choose PrismUI When:

• Building applications using the complete Prism Architecture
• Working with declarative UI frameworks (SwiftUI, React, Flutter)
• Requiring clear separation of UI logic from presentation
• Building complex, hierarchical UIs
• Needing high testability for UI logic

Choose MVVM When:

• Working with frameworks that have built-in MVVM support
• Requiring strong data binding capabilities
• Building data-intensive applications
• Teams have strong MVVM experience

Choose Redux/Flux When:

• Building JavaScript/React applications
• Requiring centralized state management
• Needing time-travel debugging
• Managing complex application state

Choose MVC When:

• Working with frameworks that enforce MVC
• Building simple, form-based applications
• Rapid prototyping is the primary goal
• Teams have strong MVC experience

Choose MVP When:

• Working with traditional imperative UI frameworks
• High UI logic testability is critical
• Clear separation of concerns is important
• Complex UI logic with simple presentation

Choose Composable Architecture When:

• Building highly modular applications
• Requiring strong type safety
• Managing complex side effects
• Teams value functional programming principles

Framework-Specific Considerations

iOS/SwiftUI

PrismUI works exceptionally well with SwiftUI:

• Natural mapping between state and view updates
• Easy integration with SwiftUI's binding system
• Compatible with SwiftUI's native state management
• Proper separation that SwiftUI encourages but doesn't enforce

Android/Jetpack Compose

PrismUI integrates smoothly with Jetpack Compose:

• Compatible with Compose's state-based rendering
• Works well with Compose's unidirectional data flow
• Provides structure that complements Compose's flexibility
• Clear separation of concerns that Compose encourages

Web/React

PrismUI concepts can be effectively applied to React:

• State objects map to React's component state
• Intents map to callbacks and action creators
• Hierarchical presenters map to container components
• Unidirectional flow aligns with React best practices

Testing Strategies

PrismUI facilitates comprehensive testing of UI logic:

1. Presenter Unit Tests:

   • Test intent handling logic in isolation
   • Verify state changes for given inputs
   • Test presenter hierarchy communication

2. Integration Tests:

   • Test presenter interaction with Orchestration
   • Verify correct intent bubbling
   • Test state propagation down hierarchy

3. UI Component Tests:

   • Test correct rendering based on state
   • Verify intent generation from user actions
   • Test accessibility and layout properties

Best Practices for PrismUI Implementation

1. Follow Hierarchical Structure:

   • Maintain clear top, mid, and component level presenters
   • Define clear responsibilities at each level
   • Keep presenter hierarchy mirroring UI hierarchy

2. Design Clear Intents:

   • Create explicit, granular intent objects
   • Use domain-centric naming for intents
   • Handle intents at appropriate hierarchy levels

3. Make State Immutable:

   • Design state objects as immutable structures
   • Create new state instances for each change
   • Include only what's needed for rendering

4. Optimize State Flow:

   • Pass only necessary state to child presenters
   • Transform state for specific presenter needs
   • Use proper diffing to prevent unnecessary updates

5. Integration with Orchestration:

   • Only top-level presenters communicate with Orchestration
   • Bubble intents up to the appropriate level
   • Keep Presentation and Orchestration concerns separate

Conclusion

PrismUI offers a modern, hierarchical approach to UI architecture that aligns perfectly with the core principles of Prism Architecture. Its focus on intent-based communication, unidirectional state flow, and compatibility with declarative UI frameworks makes it an excellent choice for contemporary application development.

While each UI architectural pattern has its strengths, PrismUI provides a balanced approach that prioritizes testability, scalability, and developer experience—making it the recommended choice for Prism Architecture implementations.

When selecting a UI architecture, consider your team's experience, project requirements, target platforms, and how the UI architecture will integrate with your overall application architecture.